Multiplayer isn't always the answer

[ACEofHeart]

LOL ,, Okay,, you did say it took you "weeks" to play a single game.
That was the point I was trying to make.. So that comment about doing in an afternoon..was sorta BS sounding..
Hey,,my criticism is not about just "playing multiplayer" ( I've played Starcraft,, Diablo 2 etc online ),,its about playing an Epic Turn Based Stratgy game...
In over 20 years of gaming I've NEVER encountered
( this includes in 4 States,,Online,,at Work,, Around the neighborhods etc ) anyone ,, I'll repeat,, NOT even ONE who wanted to play a Multiplayer Civ like Turn Based Game ... so why wouldn't I base my assumption on my experiences too..
Oh and yes I have LOTS of friends ,, they too just think it's a ridiculous waste of their gaming time...
But if any company wants to offer the ability,,without 1 "holding up a release" or 2. altering gameplay" or 3. sacrificing aspects of the Single game,, I'll say more power to them and anyone who needs multiplayer...

[ACEofHeart]

hmmmm,,,was thinking.. (always dangerous LOL )

Maybe some of you can enlighten the rest of us..
When you play a Epic Turn Based game like Civ in Multiplayer, is Military Conquest the real only viable victory condition ? Seems like other victory options like Diplomatic,, Cultural,, etc.. would become non existent.. Just seems like you're taking the essence of the game
( World Building experience ) and tossing it aside... Then my question would be why even play it ??
and not play some quick RTS if just bragging rights that you "blew them up" real good is all you're looking for ?? haha

[yin26]

While I'm no fan of MP TBS, I can say that even my brief forays into it for research purposes showed me that a good human opponent provides a game that is light years ahead of what the AI can give you. I get that and appreciate it. But:

1) Like Sirian says, the pacing is different. The time commitment (or the fact that you can't so easily dictate the timing of play as you can againsst an ever-ready AI) argues against guys like me with kids, etc., from ever really making this work.

2) And it is also the case, both positively and negatively, that making "MP first" your mantra is bound to have impacts on the SP experience. Just read Brad's take on it again if you have doubts. If 33% of the Civ4 budget could have been put back in the SP experience, I'm willing to bet they would have had even more success with the game.

[ACEofHeart]

I agree Yin..
Maybe an "age" factor does comes into play when talking playing a TBS game in Multiplayer..
As a married man with kids and a full time job,, I can even fathom having the time,,let alone be able to co-ordinate with others the time needed..
I guess if I was back in High School and it was the middle of July I could pull it off..

[bonscott]

If I was in High School or College then sure, I've got time to waste for a MP TBS game (however back in college I was doing things other then playing games such as drinking heavily but we won't talk about that... )

For those in the "real world" of job, family, life, etc. there just isn't time to comment hours every day and find enough other people to spend the same amount of time every day.

But I digress...I have nothing against adding in MP, just not at the expense of the SP game since only a small, small fraction would ever play MP. The one thing MP diehards don't understand is the numbers. They may think there is a large community of MP gamers if 2000 people play online, but they forget there are 100,000 plus that actually have the game. That's a pretty small segment of the market.

[yin26]

I could also see people who are retired, semi-retired, able to do it. In that case, I'd probably be playing MP a fair amount with friends I like and can trust to keep things moving along. MP by its nature, of course, creates a cliquish feel, and I don't begrudge them their public defense of a process they love. SP, though, is clearly the (if silent) majority, and there are a TON of SP players out there who never even drop in on forums let alone try their hand at something on-line. Anyway, maybe one day the MP/SP thing will form some kind of seamless, happy family...?

[MikeH]

I'm another one of those for whom "Multiplayer" in TBS means the ability to play PBEM and Hotseat.

I have played quite a lot of hotseat Civ IV, never considered playing online.

[MasterDave]

I am one of those allegedly non-existent people who has played a lot TBS games multiplayer, Moo2 being the one I have played the most. A two player Moo2 game typically takes about three hours to finish (it would be a lot faster than that if you could limit the time for each turn like in Civ4). A four-player Moo2 game usually lasts about four to six hours before being decided.

A Civ4 game with six or seven players at the start with the turn timer set to "blazing" usually reaches a clear resolution after four or five hours. However, I have noticed that many people in the Civ4 community will quit a game if they are not doing well in the score, and if the game crashes, it is extremely rare to have the people come back to continue it. Maybe 25% of the games that get started are played to a point where there is a clear winner four or five hours later. I am an adult with a full-time job, so I have to limit my Civ4 multiplaying to weekeds, but I can often find time for a game or two during a Saturday or a Sunday.

In both cases of Moo2 or Civ 4 there is a focus on aggressive military combats, and very few games of either get very deep into the tech tree. I think the most advanced weapons I have used in Civ4 multi was artillery before the other guy conceded.

[oldstatesman]

Thanks Brad, for your perspective. Very Enlightening. And I truly appreciate your stance - I am a new customer of your company, but the more I read and hear about it, the more I feel good about supporting you by purcahsing your product (it doesn't hurt that it is a quality game).

As an old war gamer since the 60's and 70's, I have actually played very few TBS style games with a live opponent. Even the old style cardboard chips and dice AH games - hardly ever played them anyway but solitaire. I would tend to say that this is true for most old gamers....

I have nothing against MP - but quite frankly it doesn't really interest me. I play PC games to relax - to get away from it all for a few hours - and the last thing I want to deal with during this time alone is a real person; hell, that's why I escape to my computer in the first place - to recharge, to immerse myself in my imagination, to get some quality time alone away from the everyday 'real' world where I have to deal with others every moment.

[99ranch]

It seems that people aren't getting what I've been saying because the "SP-only" advocates aren't addressing it.

Make the game fun in single player, and add the option of playing it LAN/direct ip, hotseat, and PBEM. People who play TBS games in multiplayer situations are not a vast part of the market, but making the game SP only just shuts them out of the market altogether.

If you make the game "immersive" in SP, the multi will be fun between friends. Don't ruin a dynamic game by trying to balance it for competetive multiplay. Just make the option of multi available. You can even make a disclaimer that the game isn't really balanced in that way.

Friends will balance their own games by making their own rules. Don't just exclude people because you can't make that part of the game perfect. That's as bad as refusing to even make the game because it can't be perfect.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by 99ranch

Just make the option of multi available.

The problem is that this is hugely expensive to do. Making the game playable in multiplayer mode (especially if you want online, not just emailing turn files back and forth) costs about as much as developing the whole game in the first place---even leaving aside any "balance" issues. It's not a free lunch. Plus then people complain when it doesn't work smoothly (which it almost surely won't unless you have a Warcraft-sized budget).

[bonscott]

I'll just add that not having multi-player has not hurt the game. It's the #1 selling PC game right now.

[uberloz]

The only counter argument I see presented by multiplayer advocates seems to be:

"Why didn't you design the game to be appealing to my demographic? Even though it would cost you more money than you may recoup you still should have designed it for 'everyone'."

Does that just about sum it up?

Let's take it a step farther...

'Hey Brad, I'm amongst the growing population that owns a PS2 and an XBox360, plus I play computer games.

I noticed that for some reason your company made the decision not to make a port of GalCiv2 available at launch to both of these consoles! What were you thinking? Don't you know how many of these consoles there are in the world? Lots! Are you excluding a huge financial market based on some 'loyalty' to making your games PC only? Everyone knows that if you made the ports you could extend the life of the game and capture a whole new audience!

It's just disappointing to see your company miss out on what is obviously the smart thing to do. I am amongst the majority of players that would buy a copy of your game for both consoles and the PC. What a letdown that now I may not ever experience GalCiv2 on my 32" flatpanel high definition T.V. Oh, and did I hear the rumors right, you didn't even make it multiplayer?'

End of sarcasm.

[yin26]

I have multiple personalities, so by definition GalCiv2 is multiplayer for me.

[uberloz]

Originally posted by yin26
I have multiple personalities, so by definition GalCiv2 is multiplayer for me.

Do you all play hotseat or is it pbem?

Plus, how did you and 'your group' reconcile the ability to play only one race at a time?

No doubt the arguments on which race to use and what bonus's to start with would have been exceedingly entertaining for a spectator to watch.